Nationwide News Ltd v PAWA - [2006] NTSC 32

Nationwide News Ltd v Power & Water Authority [2006] NTSC 32
PARTIES:NATIONWIDE NEWS LTD
(ACN 008 438 828) trading as NORTHERN TERRITORY NEWS
v
POWER AND WATER AUTHORITY

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:No 7 of 1998 (9800429)
DELIVERED:  11 April 2006
HEARING DATES:  6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 15 June 2005
JUDGMENT OF:  SOUTHWOOD J
CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – breach – damages - reasonable foreseeability of damage – general matters – Power and Water Authority – electricity supplier – statutory powers - duty of care to whom it supplies electricity – duty to inspect – breach of statutory duty – standard of care – due care and skill – reasonable steps to minimise danger – causation – overhead power lines – short circuits created by flying fox – damage to property
QUANTUM – restitutio in integrum – depreciated replacement value
Crown Proceedings Act (2002): s 5
Electricity Act 1978: s 14, s 32
Government Owned Corporations Act (2001): s 55(2), s 55(2)(b), (c), (d)
Power and Water Authority Act 1987: s 4(d)(2), s 14, s 15, s 16, s 17
Power and Water Authority Amendment Act (2001)
Supreme Court Act (2003): s 84

Australian Standard 4262.2 – 1999 Telecommunications Over-voltages Part 2: Protection of Equipment: p 7
New South Wales Industry Safety Standards Committee: EC4 “Guide to Inspections of Overhead Lines”
Australian National Airline Commission v Newman (1987) 162 CLR 466;

Birch v Central West County District Council (1969) 119 CLR 652; Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512; Dungog Shire Council v Babbage [2004] NSWCA 160; Georgopoulos v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2004] NSWCA 266; Hampton Court Ltd v Crooks (1957) 97 CLR 367; Henderson v Jenkins & Sons [1970] AC 282; Hoad & Anor v Scone Motors Pty Ltd [1977] 1 NSWLR 88; Rickards v Australian Telecommunications Commission [1983] 3 NSWLR 155; Sovar v Henry Lane Pty Ltd (1967) 116 CLR 397; Spencer v The Council of the City of Maryborough [2002] QCA 250; Staines v Commonwealth of Australia (1990) 100 FLR 242; Wyong Shire Council v Shirt and Others (1980) 146 CLR 40 - applied

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1992-4) 179 CLR 520 - distinguished

Hartley v Mayoh & Co [1954] 1 QB 383; Heard v Brymbo Steel Co Ltd [1947] 2 KB 692; Midwood & Co Ltd v Manchester Corporation [1905] 2 KB 597; North Sydney Municipal Council v Housing Commission of New South Wales (1948) 48 SR (NSW) 281; Prospect County Council v Blue Mountains City Council (1992) 28 NSWLR 301; Schwartz v RESI Corporation (2003) 85 SASR 357; – cited
Clive Boddington v Southern Mitchell County Council BC9002541 (1990) NSWSC; Phillis v Daly (1988) 15 NSWLR 65; Telfer & Anor v Flinders Ranges Council and Ors [1999]…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nationwide News Ltd v PAWA and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NTSC 32
Decision Date: 11 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nationwide News Ltd brought proceedings against the Power and Water Authority, seeking damages for the loss and damage to its property due to a power surge that caused damage to its telecommunications and electrical equipment. The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory heard the case, which involved issues of negligence, duty of care, breach of statutory duty, and quantum of damages. The primary legal issue was whether the Power and Water Authority owed a duty of care to Nationwide News Ltd, and if so, whether they breached that duty, leading to the damage. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate measure of damages for Nationwide News Ltd's losses.

The court held that the Power and Water Authority did owe a duty of care to Nationwide News Ltd, given their statutory powers and responsibilities. The Authority had a duty to inspect and maintain the electricity supply infrastructure to ensure the safety of those supplied. However, the court found that the Authority had not breached this duty. The Authority had taken reasonable steps to minimise the risk of damage from overhead power lines, and the damage was caused by an unforeseeable event – the flying fox short circuiting the power lines. The court also found that the damages claimed by Nationwide News Ltd were excessive and not proportionate to the actual loss suffered.

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory dismissed the claim brought by Nationwide News Ltd against the Power and Water Authority. The court held that the Authority did not breach its duty of care, and therefore, no damages were payable. The court's decision was based on the reasonable foreseeability of the damage and the measures taken by the Authority to prevent such damage.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Having considered all of the evidence I make the following findings of fact. Obviously I so do on the balance of probabilities. The findings of fact are dealt with in five parts: (1) the admitted facts; (2) the electricity reticulation system in which the incident that is the subject of this litigation occurred; (3) causation; (4) surge protector; and (5) the risk of damage.Part 1 – The Admitted Facts So far as is relevant to causation, the following facts are admitted: there was no damage to the electrical plant unconnected to the telecommunications system apart from the line conditioner, the UPS system and a power outlet; two of the thyristors which were situated on inverter output of the UPS were out of tolerance after the incident on 26 June 1996; and, the plaintiff’s premises were built as a Faraday cage.Part 2 – The Electricity Reticulation System The plaintiff conducts a newspaper and publishing business at its premises in McMinn Street. The plaintiff’s premises comprise a separate building known as the old printing building or paper store on lot 1621 and two interconnected buildings that have been built on two adjoining allotments, lot 5414 and lot 3476. The building on lot 5414 is known as building A and the building on lot 3476 is known as building B. As is to be expected the plaintiff’s premises are supplied with all the usual services including water and sewage. They are equipped with electric circuits and connections and Telecom circuits and connections. There is a water meter connected to the water supply going into building A and another water meter connected to the water supply going into building B. The electrical main switch board is on the southern side of building A, the UPS is at the bottom of a set of stairs in building A. The stairs are near the boundary of building B. The PABX is towards the front of building A. The Telecom earth is near the boundary of buildings A and B. The water meter to building B is in a corner of lot 1621. At all material times the Power and Water Authority supplied electricity to the plaintiff’s premises. It did so within the electric power grid that had been inherited from the Commonwealth Department of Works. A very large part of the electric power grid in Darwin is constructed of steel power poles with steel crossarms and overhead cable conductors. However, the plaintiff’s premises are located at the edge of Darwin’s Central Business District. For the purposes of this proceeding the Central Business District is bounded by McMinn Street, The Esplanade and Daly Street. The part of the electric power grid that services the Central Business District is almost exclusively underground. Electricity for Darwin is generated at the Channel Island power station where three phase power is produced by electrical generators. It has an alternating current (AC). Electricity is transmitted from Channel Island to Hudson Creek Terminal Station along conductors at 132,000 volts. At the Hudson Creek Terminal Station the electricity is stepped down from 132,000 volts to 66,000 volts. It is then distributed to a number of zone substations in Darwin. One of these substations is the City Zone substation. It is located in McMinn Street.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.